糖心Vlog

WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the Trump administration rescinded guidance that reaffirmed hospitals鈥� obligation under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide health-saving and lifesaving abortion care to patients experiencing medical crises. The rescission of the guidance is yet another clear sign the administration is caving to its anti-abortion allies and reneging on President Trump鈥檚 campaign promises that his administration would not interfere with abortion access. The Trump administration鈥檚 announcement came the same day as an anti-abortion group challenging the guidance chose to dismiss its case, Catholic Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This case threatened to jeopardize access to emergency abortion care nationwide. The Catholic Medical Association鈥檚 decision to abandon its case came just days after Doctors for America 鈥� represented by the 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Tennessee, Democracy Forward, and the National Women鈥檚 Law Center 鈥� moved to intervene as a defendant in the case to ensure that access to this critical care was vigorously defended. While the federal government was named as a defendant in the case, it had made no move to defend EMTALA and the right to emergency abortion care in the lawsuit. 鈥淭he Trump administration cannot simply erase four decades of law protecting patients鈥� lives with the stroke of a pen,鈥� said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU鈥檚 Reproductive Freedom Project. 鈥淩egardless of where they live, pregnant patients have a right to emergency abortion care that will save their health or lives. By rescinding this guidance, the Trump administration has sent a clear signal that it is siding not with the majority, but with its anti-abortion allies 鈥� and that will come at the expense of women鈥檚 lives. The 糖心Vlogwill use every lever we have to keep President Trump and his administration from endangering our health and lives.鈥� 鈥淔or decades, EMTALA has protected the ability of all people, including those who are pregnant, to receive life and health saving, stabilizing care in emergency situations. Yet, extremists have sought to undermine these protections for those who are pregnant following the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Dobbs through filing baseless legal challenges like the one they dismissed today and through the EMTALA guidance rescission announced today,鈥� said Skye Perryman, President & CEO for Democracy Forward. 鈥淭he Trump administration鈥檚 decision to withdraw EMTALA guidance guaranteeing pregnant people medical care in emergency situations will sow confusion for providers and endanger the lives and health of pregnant people. Every American deserves the right to access the necessary care in emergency scenarios, including pregnant people, without political interference. Democracy Forward will continue to work with our partners to use all legal tools to defend Americans鈥� reproductive freedom, promote evidence-based and medically accurate information and care, and oppose efforts that place political ideology over patient care.鈥� 鈥淓MTALA has long protected the right to emergency care, including abortion when it is the necessary treatment to stabilize a patient. Stripping away federal guidance affirming what the law requires will put lives at risk,鈥� said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women鈥檚 Law Center. 鈥淭o be clear: this action doesn鈥檛 change hospitals' legal obligations, but it does add to the fear, confusion, and dangerous delays patients and providers have faced since the fall of Roe v. Wade. At the same time, this administration claims it is considering ways to support 鈥榩opulation growth,鈥� but it is actively dismantling the systems that protect pregnant people鈥檚 health and lives. The hypocrisy is staggering. No matter what political games the administration wants to play, we will continue to stand with the patients, doctors, and hospitals fighting every day to do what is right.鈥� For nearly four decades, EMTALA has been understood by medical providers and the federal government 鈥� including both Democratic and Republican administrations 鈥� to require abortion care when that care is needed to stabilize pregnant patients in a medical crisis. As Doctors for America鈥檚 motion to intervene emphasized, stripping away EMTALA鈥檚 protections would put doctors in legal chaos and force them to violate their sworn duty: to save lives and prevent harm.

WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, Doctors for America 鈥� represented by Democracy Forward, the 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof Tennessee, and the National Women鈥檚 Law Center 鈥� is taking legal action to defend pregnant patients' right to receive, and for physicians to provide, health- and life-saving abortion care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This federal law has required hospitals with emergency departments to provide stabilizing treatment, including abortion, to patients experiencing medical emergencies for nearly four decades. Through its intervention, Doctors for America seeks to ensure that the right to emergency abortion care under EMTALA is vigorously defended. Doctors for America鈥檚 motion to intervene was filed in Catholic Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al., which challenges EMTALA guidance issued in 2022, which reaffirms EMTALA鈥檚 protections for pregnant people, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division. 鈥淒octors should not be forced to choose between following the law and saving a patient鈥檚 life,鈥� said Dr. Christine Petrin, president of Doctors for America. 鈥淓MTALA was designed to protect patients in crisis. We are fighting to ensure that these protections extend to pregnant patients and that physicians can provide lifesaving treatment to them without fear of prosecution.鈥� For nearly 40 years, EMTALA has been understood by medical providers and the federal government 鈥� including both Democratic and Republican administrations 鈥� to require abortion care when that care is needed to stabilize pregnant patients in a medical crisis. As today鈥檚 motion to intervene emphasizes, stripping away EMTALA鈥檚 protections would put doctors in legal chaos and force them to violate their sworn duty: to save lives and prevent harm. 鈥淧regnant people have suffered needlessly, and some have died, because of the chaos and confusion that abortion bans have caused for patients and their doctors,鈥� said Carrie Flaxman, senior legal advisor at Democracy Forward. 鈥淓MTALA has protected the lives and health of pregnant people for nearly four decades 鈥� it is a critical safeguard to ensure that pregnant people receive medical care in emergency situations, including abortion care. Any attempt to undermine EMTALA and its implementation 鈥� which will sow confusion for providers and endanger the lives and health of pregnant people 鈥� will be met swiftly with action by Democracy Forward, our partners, and our brave clients.鈥� 鈥淲hen pregnant patients go to the emergency room, they expect to get the care needed to protect their health and lives 鈥� but anti-abortion politicians and their allies would rather see women die than access abortion,鈥� said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the 糖心VlogReproductive Freedom Project. 鈥淚t is shocking but not surprising that extremists continue pushing to make abortion completely inaccessible, even in emergencies. The 糖心Vlogand our partners will not stop fighting against these continued attacks on our reproductive freedom.鈥� 鈥淲e are taking action because lives are on the line,鈥� said Emily Martin, chief program officer at the National Women鈥檚 Law Center. 鈥淓very one of us expects that if we, or someone we love, face a medical emergency, a hospital will do what it takes to save us. But since the Supreme Court lawlessly overturned Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion extremists have wrought legal chaos. As a result, some pregnant patients facing life- and health-threatening emergencies haven鈥檛 been able to get the care they urgently need and are entitled to by law. Pregnant people have the right to access emergency care just like anyone else, including emergency abortion care. We will not allow these basic safeguards to be stripped away by extremists. The federal law requiring emergency care be provided to all has been saving lives for decades, and we refuse to let anti-abortion politicians put more pregnant people at risk of immense suffering or even death because they can鈥檛 get the care they have the right to receive.鈥�

On behalf of Doctors for America, the 糖心Vlogand several partner organizations are intervening to vigorously defend pregnant patients' right to receive, and for physicians to provide, health- and life-saving abortion care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This federal law has required hospitals with emergency departments to provide stabilizing treatment, including abortion, to patients experiencing medical emergencies for nearly four decades.

PHOENIX 鈥� Arizona doctors filed a lawsuit today seeking to strike down many remaining abortion restrictions and further expand access to care in the state. One such restriction forces patients to unnecessarily make two separate trips to a clinic, delaying access to time-sensitive care for days, if not weeks. The lawsuit argues that these medically unnecessary restrictions make it harder to access abortion care and thus violate the state鈥檚 new constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion. Last November, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, to enshrine the fundamental right to abortion in the state constitution. Soon after the amendment passed, Arizona health care providers swiftly and successfully blocked the state鈥檚 15-week abortion ban. Now, they are challenging some of the state鈥檚 most burdensome restrictions that remain on the books to make sure patients can get the constitutionally protected care they need. The restrictions challenged include: Laws forcing providers to relay, and patients to receive, biased and inaccurate information about abortion in person, and then wait at least 24 hours before being able to obtain care 鈥� requiring two separate trips to a provider. Patients are often unable to get time-sensitive care for days, if not weeks, because of these restrictions. Laws banning abortion as an option for patients with fetal diagnoses, forcing doctors to turn their patients away if they even suspect someone鈥檚 reason for seeking care is due to a fetal condition. A prohibition on the use of telemedicine for medication abortion, including a ban on the mailing of abortion pills, despite ample evidence that this is a safe and effective form of care. These restrictions make it harder, if not impossible, for Arizonans to get abortion care in the state. These barriers disproportionately impact low-income communities, communities of color, and those living in rural areas who already have limited access to health care. Access to medication abortion via telemedicine and mail, for example, has been essential for many who don鈥檛 have the resources to make multiple trips or travel long distances for care. Arizona is one of just four states that ban the mailing of abortion pills. These restrictions are designed to make abortion care more difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and distressing to access. Quotes from plaintiffs and attorneys: 鈥淭rust, honesty, and open communication are essential parts of a healthy doctor-patient relationship 鈥� and these restrictions get in the way of all three,鈥� said Dr. Paul Isaacson, OB-GYN and co-owner of the Family Planning Associates Medical Group. 鈥淭he state of Arizona has forced me to compromise my duty as a doctor to provide my patients with accurate information and the safest, most compassionate care possible. These laws are not based in medicine. I am hopeful that the courts will see these unnecessary, harmful restrictions for what they are and honor what the majority of Arizonans want: the right to decide what鈥檚 best for their own health and futures.鈥� 鈥淭here is absolutely no medical reason why I shouldn鈥檛 be able to offer abortion care via telemedicine,鈥� said Dr. William Richardson, OB-GYN and owner of Choices Women鈥檚 Center. "By banning telemedicine, Arizona is putting ideology over science and politics over patient health. These restrictions are an insult to patients and only push care out of reach 鈥� especially for those in rural, low-income, and marginalized communities. Arizonans have a right to autonomy, dignity, and evidence-based care, so I joined this lawsuit to make that a reality 鈥� not just for my patients, but for everyone." 鈥淟ast November, Arizona voters took back the power to make their own reproductive health care decisions. Yet they still must jump through hoops to get abortion care,鈥� said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. 鈥淭hese burdensome restrictions have been in place for far too long, so we鈥檙e going to court to strike them down once and for all. We are carrying out the will of the voters. The public and the constitution are aligned 鈥� now it鈥檚 time for the law to catch up.鈥� 鈥淲hen I see a patient who is seeking abortion, I trust that she is making the best decision for herself and her family,鈥� said Dr. Laura Mercer, OB-GYN and Arizona Medical Association Board Member At-Large. 鈥淏ut restrictions like Arizona鈥檚 biased counseling requirement and forced delay period force me to undermine my patient鈥檚 decisions and violate my professional code of ethics. As a health care provider and educator, I am proud that the Arizona Medical Association is challenging these laws so that every Arizonan can make pregnancy decisions without interference.鈥� 鈥淭hese stigmatizing and medically unnecessary abortion restrictions violate the right to reproductive freedom established by Arizona voters last November, and it鈥檚 time for them to go,鈥� said Rebecca Chan, Staff Attorney for the 糖心VlogReproductive Freedom Project. 鈥淎rizonans are perfectly capable of making decisions about their own reproductive futures. Voters made crystal clear last fall that denying people this autonomy is not just wrong 鈥� it is unconstitutional. All people deserve the freedom to make decisions about their pregnancies without political interference. The 糖心Vlogis proud to be challenging these laws alongside our partners to fulfil the promise of the Arizona Abortion Access Act.鈥� 鈥淎rizonans have long faced strict barriers to care that add unnecessary cost, stress, and burden to people who need abortions. Even with the passage of Proposition 139, those laws remain on the books,鈥� said Lauren Beall, staff attorney for the 糖心Vlogof Arizona. 鈥淣o one should have to face state-mandated delays to healthcare, be forced to listen to biased and inaccurate information about abortion or lose access to medication by mail because of a ban. Alongside providers and partners, we are fighting to fulfill the promise of the Abortion Access Act for everyone who needs care in our state.鈥� Fighting to enforce Arizona鈥檚 new state constitutional protections for abortion are Dr. Paul A. Isaacson, M.D., Dr. William Richardson, M.D., and the Arizona Medical Association represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the 糖心Vlog, and 糖心Vlogof Arizona.